If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. Registration is $1 to post on this forum. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I find it interesting too, I just don't think highly of Hynix NAND. Slow, rated for 3000 P/E cycles despite being 34nm-class, very inexpensive...when I think of Hynix NAND, I just don't think of quality.

While I have a hunch the Intel 320 and SF-1200/2200 will be the strongest for endurance (both have parity, SF also can achieve <1.00x WA and SF also has LTT, helping it last longer in terms of days at the expense of performance), but I wouldn't be surprised if this drive were the fastest to die. Maybe further down the road I'll enter an nLTT F60A (IMFT 25nm) or even find an F60 (IMFT 34nm) to enter, but only after one of the two drives I'm running dies (essentially out of SATA ports on the system used for this).

MOVEMENT in attribute 178 raw!!!! Changed from 276 to 282. Now adding it to my reporting list:

284.151 TiB, 776 hours, sa177: 1/1/23345, sa178: 72/72/282

Average speed reported by Anvil's app has been steady at about 112MB/s.

The other unknown SMART attribute 235 is still at 99/99/2, just as it was when the SSD was fresh out of the box.

64GB Samsung 470

I wonder if SA178 is reallocated block count? Maybe the SSD shipped with a number of reallocated blocks (from Samsung internal burn-in test?) and only now have there been any new reallocated blocks? I don't know, just guessing.

Right after the above data, I upgraded to the latest version of ASU, Beta4. Before restarting endurance testing, I ran Samsung's SSD Optimization software (Magician), and also ran ASU SSD benchmark and AS-SSD.

Now is that 6 blocks (equiv) or 1 block (equiv)? Both are multiples of six, it moved by a chunk of six, and the first movement was by a chunk of six, so I'm guessing it's 1 block (equiv) and for some reason the raw value moves in steps of six. Good thing I've been keeping track of SA178 this whole time, don't need to add anything

SA178 having a reading of 290 answers the 6 vs. 1 question...it looks like 6 blocks lost and now 14 blocks lost

Do you know when it ticked over to 71 normalized? If it happened at 285, then it could be an indication of how the normalized value is calculated and how much NAND failure is 'acceptable' (with an allocation of 1000 blocks to fail and every 10 blocks it moves 1 step).

Also of note, your WA has been creeping upward for a long time now. At 20TiB, it was 1.0626x; at 40TiB, it was 1.0727x; at 91TiB, it was 1.078x; at 130TiB, it was 1.089x; at 200TiB, it's 1.0933x. Before 20TiB (when calculation is less precise), it climbed from 1.028x to 1.0626x pretty smoothly and quickly....it's been a very smooth climb the entire time actually.

Also of note, your WA has been creeping upward for a long time now. At 20TiB, it was 1.0626x; at 40TiB, it was 1.0727x; at 91TiB, it was 1.078x; at 130TiB, it was 1.089x; at 200TiB, it's 1.0933x. Before 20TiB (when calculation is less precise), it climbed from 1.028x to 1.0626x pretty smoothly and quickly....it's been a very smooth climb the entire time actually.